Net Neutrality Is Marxist?

Michael Torrie torriem at gmail.com
Tue Apr 13 11:06:37 MDT 2010


On 04/13/2010 10:37 AM, Steven Alligood wrote:
> Government regulation, in general, is bad and looses a little more of 
> our freedoms each and every time it happens.  It eliminates the benefits 
> of the free market, and costs more money to do so.  All because people 
> get in their heads that they cannot do without the service.

I disagree.  Government is a way that societies have for regulating what
happens when two different freedoms come into conflict.  Sometimes
freedom in one area actually leads to a decreased freedom in another
area.  Conversely, giving up freedom in one area leads to an increase in
freedom in society in general.  Regulation should follow this principle.
 For example, I don't have the freedom to drive on any side of the road
that I want.  We as a society have given up that freedom.  In exchange,
we have the freedom to drive to any play in a timely and safe manner.
That's a net win for society.  Without government we lose even more
freedom because we're now subject to the tyranny of those with power, be
it corporations, groups of people, etc.

So I find your argument, couched in terms of "freedom" to be fallacious.
 In fact in America, like the terms "Marxism," "Socialism," "Communism,"
and "Fascism," "Freedom" has lost a lot of meaning and, in fact, does
not mean what many people want it to mean.  Having health care insurance
reform, for example, does not "take away our freedom!"  Particularly in
Utah where a certain religion is quite dominant, ideas of what "Freedom"
and "Agency" are are really skewed.

In general, this quintessential American idea of "me against the Man"
has always struck me as very odd since if the Man is really against me
then the republic has failed.  Despite what certain pundits on the right
wing news channels say, I don't think the republic has failed yet.


More information about the PLUG mailing list